If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will need to register and pay
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. Unregistered visitors can leave comments on the articles, your comments will not be visible until a moderator has approved it.

I also found his thread about the hoodie on the neighborhood watch sign, you know when his cell was dead and couldn't get a photo.....wink wink, was an odd post and wondered what his agenda was with that post.

He did give a non-scientific poll of how people feel about the TM situation after spending a week in FL.

I think the question stands on it's own, but to give it more context, we are ongoing discussions about health care, budgets and taxes in this country and on this board. I think it helps to know what people this is enough to tread water.

The site you linked says a family of 4 is below the poverty guidelines if they make lass that $23050 a year. So roughly a bit less than $2000 a month. Does that sound about right?

Originally Posted by FLA4NEB

Jay, they need as much as they can go out and earn. It is the wants that trip people up and get them in trouble.

So, if we have a family of 4 where both the mother and father have lost their jobs and are working for low wages and bringing in just $1000 a month, should we as tax payers, as a nation, provide assistance in the form of school lunch programs, food stamps, health care etc to them or should they just live on what they are making, period?

Originally Posted by ChitownHusker

Objection to relevance.

Sustained.

Would you like to be a judge?

Originally Posted by BIGRED..CHEESEHED

I think the OP begs the question - if they don't have the 'income' to support a family of FOUR maybe they shouldn't be a family of FOUR ?

You could be right. If they HAD income but lost their income, what actions should they take to reduce their family size?

I think the question stands on it's own, but to give it more context, we are ongoing discussions about health care, budgets and taxes in this country and on this board. I think it helps to know what people this is enough to tread water.

The site you linked says a family of 4 is below the poverty guidelines if they make lass that $23050 a year. So roughly a bit less than $2000 a month. Does that sound about right?

So, if we have a family of 4 where both the mother and father have lost their jobs and are working for low wages and bringing in just $1000 a month, should we as tax payers, as a nation, provide assistance in the form of school lunch programs, food stamps, health care etc to them or should they just live on what they are making, period?

Would you like to be a judge?

You could be right. If they HAD income but lost their income, what actions should they take to reduce their family size?

So both the mother and father lost their jobs, but they're both working in lower wage jobs. If they're both working and still bringing in just $1000/mo, they must only be working a few hours a month. If full time employment constitutes 2080 hours per year (40 hrs/wk x 52 weeks), then one month of full time work would average out to 173.3 hours. If they are both working full time, that's 346.6 hours/mo. If they're only bringing in $1000/mo, that's $2.89/hr. They need to find different jobs, work more hours, or make someone aware of the minimum wage violation occurring at both places of employment.

So the point of the thread is to argue that we should provide a social safety net for people who are unable to pay for basic necessities?

An alternative way of going about that would be to ask, do you think we should provide a social safety net for people who lack the means to pay for basic necessities? Then people could respond one way or the other.

I know that's an awfully direct way of doing things. And I'm sure that until this thread, it had never occurred to people that there is a certain dollar figure below which people would not be able to sustain the basic cost of living. And, further, that by coming to that realization, people will finally see the light and understand that their longstanding opposition to welfare has been misplaced all this time, because gosh darnit, people do need that money to survive.

But still, just approaching the issue directly could be a radical new approach. Might be something to think about.

"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II

So both the mother and father lost their jobs, but they're both working in lower wage jobs. If they're both working and still bringing in just $1000/mo, they must only be working a few hours a month. If full time employment constitutes 2080 hours per year (40 hrs/wk x 52 weeks), then one month of full time work would average out to 173.3 hours. If they are both working full time, that's 346.6 hours/mo. If they're only bringing in $1000/mo, that's $2.89/hr. They need to find different jobs, work more hours, or make someone aware of the minimum wage violation occurring at both places of employment.

If they are making minimum wage, having SS taken out but no state or federal taxes and bringing home $1000, they are working about 34 hours a week, collectively. In a high unemployment environment, I know a number of people who would like to find better paying jobs and get more hours then what they can find right now. Do you agree?

So the point of the thread is to argue that we should provide a social safety net for people who are unable to pay for basic necessities?

An alternative way of going about that would be to ask, do you think we should provide a social safety net for people who lack the means to pay for basic necessities? Then people could respond one way or the other.

I know that's an awfully direct way of doing things. And I'm sure that until this thread, it had never occurred to people that there is a certain dollar figure below which people would not be able to sustain the basic cost of living. And, further, that by coming to that realization, people will finally see the light and understand that their longstanding opposition to welfare has been misplaced all this time, because gosh darnit, people do need that money to survive.

But still, just approaching the issue directly could be a radical new approach. Might be something to think about.

So the point of the thread is to argue that we should provide a social safety net for people who are unable to pay for basic necessities?

An alternative way of going about that would be to ask, do you think we should provide a social safety net for people who lack the means to pay for basic necessities? Then people could respond one way or the other.

I know that's an awfully direct way of doing things. And I'm sure that until this thread, it had never occurred to people that there is a certain dollar figure below which people would not be able to sustain the basic cost of living. And, further, that by coming to that realization, people will finally see the light and understand that their longstanding opposition to welfare has been misplaced all this time, because gosh darnit, people do need that money to survive.

But still, just approaching the issue directly could be a radical new approach. Might be something to think about.

Thank you for your suggestion.

I believe that the question in your second paragraph has been asked and answered by most--including on this board many times and by elected officials and candidates. That answer seems to be a resounding YES!...but. There is wide spread disagreement as to where to draw the line in terms of assistance as well as how long the assistance should last.

My question was quite direct and quite simple. "How much does a family of 4 need"? Perhaps it was too direct.